I'm out

[Mark]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Alexander Neundorf <neundorf at kde.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> until recently I thought I was still the maintainer of the buildsystem for
> KDE4 and also KF5, but I think the consensus on this list here is that Stephen
> has taken over this role.
> So I'll let him do that, and stay out of the way.
>
> I'll still have a look at KDE4 stuff, but for KF5 (including extra-cmake-
> modules) I'll let you do what you want. Put me on CC directly if you have
> questions. Maybe I'll join again later, we'll see.
>
> As I see it, Stephen and I disagree on a lot of fundamental things, and this
> makes working on KF5 anything but fun for me. Stephen went ahead and changed
> them all, and more or less all of them without proposal or discussion, at
> least I am not aware of those.
> Also, I simply finally have enough of these discussions in my spare time.
>
> Here's what I'm talking of:
>
> - requiring versions of cmake. For me, I don't want to annoy developers, I
> want to decrease their work. I don't want that cmake is seen as a tool which
> all the time requires work. You know that from KDE4. We increased the required
> versions only rarely, everytime with a long warning period. I would keep it
> this way for KF5 too. Stephen decided to require bleeding edge cmake for KF5.
>
> - releasing extra-cmake-modules.
> Two years ago in Randa, people told me they would like to use cmake stuff from
> KDE also in non-KDE projects, including the wealth of Find-modules. So I would
> have preferred to have a release of extra-cmake-modules very early, last year
> if possible, including a bunch of useful macros and some Find-modules. Not
> complete, but in good shape. Those people who talked to me at Randa would have
> liked that, and all the developers who regularly ask on the cmake list or in
> the cmake bug tracker would have liked it and maybe they even would have
> contributed.
> This was not possible, in my opinion mainly because Stephen added a bunch of
> preliminary files to extra-cmake-modules which were very much not releasable,
> API-wise, documentation-wise, and, as I said, only preliminary. We as of today
> have those files in e-c-m, and they block us from making a release.
> Stephen wants to release e-c-m when KF5 gets released.
>
> - imperative and explicit (some may say lengthy) vs. declarative and short
> (some may say magic). I want the cmake code to be easy to read and understand,
> i.e. explicit and maybe long, Stephen wants the cmake code to be a short as
> possible. IMO while this may make it easier to write, it makes it harder to
> understand and modify.
>
> - using target names vs. variables. You know that. We'll have ALIAS targets.
>
> - the cmake coding style. Not really a big issue for me, but it adds to the
> rest. The only place I am aware of where our cmake coding style is documented,
> is here: http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/CMake_Coding_Style , so that's the
> document to follow. If you want to, look at the history. At some point Stephen
> blamed me I wouldn't follow the correct coding style, according to him 2
> spaces and closing the function on a separate line. I don't know how he came
> to think this would be the cmake coding style.

Hi Alexander,

I'm sorry to hear that! I hope you keep sticking around in KDE :)
As for the issues, why don't you and Stephen just find yourself a
quiet place on IRC and talk about it?